Atheists and Theists are similar...

And I have respect for both you and your beliefs. Don't worry there's nothing wrong with a friendly discussion.

Then it doesn't appear that you've rejected Christianity on any rational ground. I mean, that you don't enjoy Christianity's view of God says nothing for the truth or falsehood of that God--only that you don't like Him.

No! Where is said that God is all-forgiving? To the contrary, I see that God is Just, and Holy (Take a look at Romans 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Galatians 6:7-10)

Or perhaps Hikaru rejects the evidence that He is given on different grounds. Perhaps he sees God as unfair, and refuses to submit to such a God. Perhaps Hikaru's presuppositions force him to interpret the evidence in such a way that it is rendered invalid. Prehaps Hikaru must first challenge his presuppositions before he can examine the evidence clearly...

I'm sure God does.

Not that you wouldn't be repenting to be saved, just that it would be too late, and repentance would be imposible.

The point is Hikaru, your decision, would already be actualized, and you would be living out the consequences. If I choose not to drink water, than I would die. But upon dying it would be too late to change my mind.

I'm sure He does.

God is not all-forgiving, nevertheless, He's willing to forgive you right now. However, if you reject, He respects you decision.

Perhaps I'll discuss the last part with you later.

 

yes
there is no natural requirement for nontangable forces and beings to not exist
and equaly none for whatever such may happen to exist to bear the slightest
resemblence to anything anyone has ever believed or immagined about them

sure everything anyone has ever believed could all (somehow, don't ask me how)
could ALL be true, but does or doesn't anyone (except a few of us maybe)
have the slightest idea how huge and diverse is even the physical material
universe, just what we can see with our own beady little optics,
really is?
how miniscule everything believed or immagined becomes by comparison
in the context of even materialy observable diversity?

so my own 'beliefs' are a patchwork of unverifyable guesswork too
but if you set aside the adament assumptions so popularly emotionaly romantic
what we are left with is that yes more then we can immagine
may and probably does exist
including quite possibly in nontangable forms
but is orders of maginitude unlikely to resemble any popular
assumption about them

and really how popular or otherwise they might happen to be
has nothing to do with likelyhood
only with how effectively they appeal to emotions that are as much a part
of any organism more complex then an amoiba as they are of
our own sentient creative selves

why do people have such a hard time simply admitting that
it is possible for there to be more then we know
when there cannot help but be orders of magnitude more then we know.

what we do know beyond what we can measure is what we can feel
and what we can feel does not dictate form
only motivates toward a sense of connectedness

leaves on a branch are each individual and individualy identifyable
yet at the same time completely contiguous with each other and the rest
of the tree.

magic, unknown, and god
not christianity, islam or any other name of belief

like those leaves on that branch we may and seem to be
part of some great tree, which to us, like the tree to
the leaves, is beyond our immagining

we can dance to someone else's ritual
we can make up our own
or we can simply experience that connectedness
without attempting to impose names and deffinicians
of our own invention on it

the only harm in either of these things is when we try
to insist on everyone else seeing with our own eyes
which can only lead to frustration and bloodshed because
each and everyone of us has our own eyes and hearts and minds

whatever does exist
i've not seen it take the place
of the kind of world (of human society) we live in
being created by how we live in it

and i for one can't immagine anyone logicly expecting it to

ok i'm rambling and repeating myself
well my only excuse is that the subject seems to insist on doing likewise

=^^=
.../\...

 

Jatom,

People tend to embrace what works for them- in accordance to their particular chemistry and dynamic. We all have different approaches to things, because we are all unique individuals. Spirituality is no exception.
God, as I'm sure you would agree, is greater than us humans can possibly hope to imagine. God is unfathomable in the realm of thought. So we see human concepts of god come in many shapes, colors, and sizes.
Christianity, metaphorically, embodies a male characterization of god- 'the father'-. So what if somebody happens to identify better with a 'mother' version of god, for instance? Is this person 'wrong'?

 

"Then it doesn't appear that you've rejected Christianity on any rational ground. I mean, that you don't enjoy Christianity's view of God says nothing for the truth or falsehood of that God--only that you don't like Him."

Hikaru has mis-stated what he meant, apologies. He finds it hard to believe in Christianity not because he doesn't like the Christian view of God, but rather because he finds the Christian view of God to be contradictive; an oxymoron, of sorts.

"No! Where is said that God is all-forgiving? To the contrary, I see that God is Just, and Holy (Take a look at Romans 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Galatians 6:7-10)"

I have been told by various pastors and reverends that God is all-forgiving.

Furthermore, though Hikaru is not knowledgable enough to know the direct passage(s) from the Bible (hats off to you for being so avid that you know the passages; or perhaps you used Google? , was it not said that repenting and praying to God will yield God's forgiveness of sins? Disbelieving in God is a sin, is it not?

"Or perhaps Hikaru rejects the evidence that He is given on different grounds. Perhaps he sees God as unfair, and refuses to submit to such a God. Perhaps Hikaru's presuppositions force him to interpret the evidence in such a way that it is rendered invalid. Prehaps Hikaru must first challenge his presuppositions before he can examine the evidence clearly..."

Hikaru would like to believe that his presuppositions do not lead him to bias. However, should this be the case, Hikaru must ask of Jatom what presuppositions he has lead him to this biased state of mind? For the reason that Hikaru has already explained, he believes the Christian view of God to be conflicting and unfair, and would not bow to an unjust God any more than he would bow to his unjust parents (which Hikaru is glad to be far away from at the moment =P).

"Not that you wouldn't be repenting to be saved, just that it would be too late, and repentance would be imposible."

Is it not the Christian belief that there is life beyond death? If so, if our souls experience everlasting life (whether in heaven or elsewhere), why would it be too late to repent, if my life would continue for at least aeons longer than it has already existed?

If Hikaru were bothered by the fact that he may not be saved, he would be repenting now. Hikaru would prefer to follow truth; not to follow a path that saves his own hide. He would not repent to be saved; rather, to follow truth. If Hikaru were offered two choices upon death: To save himself and follow a false God (should such a being exist), or to slip into unbeing and not follow a false God, Hikaru would choose unbeing simply as it is a matter of principle.

"The point is Hikaru, your decision, would already be actualized, and you would be living out the consequences. If I choose not to drink water, than I would die. But upon dying it would be too late to change my mind."

This is true. However, what consequences have Hikaru been living out? Ever since Hikaru ceased to believe in Christianity, he has found his mind to sharpen at an exponential rate (thinking outside the box, perhaps, rather than following?), he has found (or perhaps been presentented with the opportunity to choose) more truth about himself than he ever thought he would know. Hikaru sees only spiritual benefit rather than consequence.

"God is not all-forgiving, nevertheless, He's willing to forgive you right now. However, if you reject, He respects you decision."

Hikaru is pleased with the notion of God respecting his decision. =) That aside, Hikaru has been told by many "authorities" on Christianity that God IS indeed all-forgiving, and having read some of the Bible, Hikaru vaguely remembers (though perhaps it is a distorted memory?) the prospect that God is all-forgiving so long as one repents and makes an earnest effort not to sin.

"Perhaps I'll discuss the last part with you later."

If you like, you may send Hikaru a private message or an e-mail (hikaruzero@snine.net).

Hikaru finds that his only transgression with regard to Christianity is the fact that he does not believe in the Christian view of God, nor does he believe in Jesus being the saviour, or the Bible.

That aside, Hikaru follows as many of the Commandments as he is able, he follows morals and values that are set in Christianity, and he displays virtues that might be admired by Christians whenever it is possible for him to do so. Hikaru leads a life of honesty and integrity, and believes that Christianity supports such a life.

Hikaru simply finds it hard to believe that God might reject his (if-late) plea to follow truth, when he could not distinguish truth in his past life (assuming Hikaru is dead at this point).

Hikaru believes that a human which does not make their own decisions and does not seek truth is already dead. That being said, what is the difference between death by blindly following Christianity and never thinking for oneself and death by straying from a few Christian beliefs?

 

This is true, however, if one only dismisses something because he doesn't like it, then he hasn't dismissed it on any rational grounds.

This person is wrong if their concept doesn't correspond to reality, just as I'd be wrong if I stated that the Earth was larger than the Sun. As a side note, Christian theology understands God to be neither male or female...and there are 'mother' references made in Bible about God as well.

 

'Rational grounds' do not apply here. By definition rationality excludes emotion and prejudice, both of which are essential in characterizing a human spirit.

Whose reality? Your reality? My reality?

Metaphorically speaking, not literally. The 'father and son' dominate the new testament.

Please contribute these references.

 

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

Either they're mistaken (as the Bible reveals otherwise) or I'm understanding "all-forgiving" to mean something it doesn't actually mean. So let me clarify. God has the ability to forgive all sins but His forgiveness is conditional, that is, a condition must be met in order for His forgiveness to take place (that condition being that one must first accept His forgiviness in order to be forgiven). Not all individuals meet the condition, thus not all are forgiven. I take "all-forgiving" to mean that not only does God have the ability to forgive every sin, but he actually does forgive every sin. But this cannot be the case, because not everyone fulfils the condition, so not everyone is forgiven, thus not every sin is forgiven.

Yes I agree that unbelieving is sin (the unforgivible sin) and repentance brings about God's forgiveness. But I'm not sure where you were going with this.

Correct, I do have presuppositions that lead me to believe a certain way, and we'd need to critique each others' worldviews in order the examine our presuppositions. But that's a task for a different time. Anyway, I was just offering another posibility that's all.

I think this may be an equivocation of the word "life" at any rate, the life you live now is where you make your choice, it's where you have the potential to make one choice or the other. The next "life" is your potential choice made actual. It'd be to late becuase you'd already be living out your choice, just as it'd be late to start drinking water after you died. Your choice is already actualized.

As a side note, where is it said that as long as one has life, he has the choice to repent?

You're, of course, assuming that God is false. What of a different opinion, what if God were true and belief in the truth would save you?

No, no. Let's assume for the moment that Christianity is true. Now you're left with too options:
1. Accept Christ
2. Reject Christ

These to options each have their own consequence.
1. Eternal Life
2. Eternal Damnation

Now as far as your current situation goes, neither consequence (1) or (2) is currently actualized, since you haven't died yet.

See my above on this matter. It does appear that we agree for the most part though...

...and I'll email you on the other part.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, or how this dispoves the notion that someone rejecting something simply because he doesn't like it, is him rejecting it on rational-less grounds.

No, reality. The totality of all actual things

And...?

Isaiah 66:9 "Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?" says the LORD . 'Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?' says your God."Isaiah 42:14 “I cry out like a travailing woman,” Isaiah 46:3 “Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb.” Job 38:29 "From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens "Isaiah 49:15, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will not I forget thee.” Isaiah 66:13, “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you.” Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her! How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

 

"Whose reality? Your reality? My reality?"

Actuality.

"As a side note, where is it said that as long as one has life, he has the choice to repent?"

By definition of life, one always has choice. If one has life without choice, then I argue that they are already dead. For life without choice is merely action; not actually "life."

Beyond that, Jatom, you've done a good justice to Christianity.

After having a long (non-forum-related) talk with a friend last night about many things, Hikaru came to the conclusion that he respects the beliefs that Christians hold, but does not respect Christianity itself. This is due to the fact that (1) Christians have killed in the name of God, and this is clearly anti-Christian, which reinforces Hikaru's view of an oxymoronic Christianity, and (2) Almost every Christian that Hikaru has met has tried to convert him in some way.

Hikaru understands that perhaps God respects his decision to not believe (or perhaps suspect judgment about?), and Hikaru respects God back for that reason (whether or not God does or doesn't exist). However, Hikaru doesn't respect God's "fan club" because they DON'T respect his decision.

But you've done a good justice to Christianity today, as I now see there is hope for some followers of Christianity, some hope of respect and discussion without dogmatism and ignorance. =)

Either way, Hikaru doesn't like to say that he doesn't believe in the Christian God. Rather, Hikaru would say that he's suspended judgment about the existance of such; meaning he is agnostic.

It is not that Hikaru disbelieves in God, but merely that he doesn't know whether or not God exists, and because he has no proof of the existance of God, cannot come to the conclusion that God either does or doesn't exist.

Hikaru can see where disbelieving God would be punished by eternal damnation, if one did not repent during their lifetime. However, what of those who neither believe nor disbelieve in God, simply due to a lack of evidence and a rational train of thought?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her!"

Wait, the prophet-slayers went around getting people stoned? (laughs) Okay, Hikaru knows that "stoneth" in this case refers to crushing with giant rocks, but he thought this passage a tad bit funny.

 

This is absolutely horrible:

Yes, my initial thought is that you have zero clue about logic, rationality, atheism, theism, and the various positions that may come out of or result in an atheistic view of reality.

(1) Not all theists claim to work solely on groundless faith - many claim to incorporate reason into their position, and many claim that God's non-existence is an absolute impossibility

(2) There is no "faith" in logic or rationality. Logic is a necessary method by which we weed out contradictions from our thinking. There is no faith in it because it is necessarily true - and any attempts to defy it will lead into incoherence and self-contradiction.

(3) I see alot of ignorance in this post and others about what atheism actually is. If you think atheism = the position that God does not exist, you are wrong . That isn't basic atheism whatsoever, that is Strong-Atheism.

This is common knowledge.

"a" = without. "theism" = god-belief.

Atheism = without god-belief.

or, IOW:

Atheism = a lack of belief in a god or gods.

That is a far cry from saying, "Gods do not/cannot exist".

Atheism at its base, or what is also called Weak-Atheism (Negative Atheism) is purely a negative position. Strong-Atheism (Positive Atheism) is a positive position claiming knowledge about the non-existence of God. Strong-Atheism as commonly held is not a position of belief as much as it is a claimed position of knowledge due to the methods of argumentation employed by its advocates.

To try to put it even more simply:

Weak-Atheism is the position where an individual can look into his mind and find no belief in God there. The result here is that God may have a possible relation to reality - because the non-believer is not saying that it is false, but that they simply don't believe it is true.

Strong-Atheism is the position where the individual says that he doesn't just have a lack of belief in God - but that God is false. Consequently, God has no possible relation to reality.

Here's a graph I drew awhile back for someone else who didn't understand the distinction:



Implicit atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods, - but that this lack of belief has not been consciously recognized yet. An example of this is the Filipino tribesman who might never have heard of the concept of "God" before. Obviously, because he has never heard of it - he does not believe. But this lack of belief has not been consciously decided.

Once a lack or belief or a rejection of the god-concept as false is a consciously made decision - it becomes Explicit Atheism.

Any person who actually reads atheistic literature and is familiar with atheism itself would know this.

Read George Smith, or Michael Martin. Hell, go to my website: www.strongatheism.com. This is common knowledge for those who know what they're actually talking about.

Finally, you treat "atheism" as a unified worldview. It isn't. Atheism at its base is purely a negative position - so you will not be able to infer any positive qualities about the individual who holds to that view. There are many atheists who reject rationality entirely - e.g. Nihilists. There are many who completely disagree with each other on various topics - e.g. Objectivists and Humanists. You also have moral objectivists vs. moral subjectivists. And the list goes on and on.

Further, I see agnosticism being treated as a third alternative here by Occam and others. Agnosticism is not a third alternative at all. Either you have a belief in God, or you do not have a belief in God. Note that inquiring about beliefs is quite different then asking whether or not the actual deity exists. I can ask you, "Does God exist?", and you can answer, "I don't know", making you an agnostic. But then I can inquire further, "Do you have a belief in God?" - if you answer yes, then you are an agnostic theist. If you answer no, then you are an agnostic atheist (or Weak-Atheist, Negative Atheist).

As for Occam's claim that Strong-Atheism and Theism have no evidences for them at all, I already challenged to formally debate him on another thread for fun. I'll happily reform my challenge and have him address my own evidences against the existence of God - and we can see whether or not my position really amounts to "no evidence at all".

I'm quite sure Jatom is capable of doing the same for his own theistic stance. From my brief overview of this thread, it seems that he's been the only sensible contributor all the way through.

- Laz

 

J_Lazarus, you seem to be having problems with your definition of terms. You seem to be confusing agnosticism with this "Weak-Atheism."

Once again here, you are confused about the definitions of your terms. I contend that my answer to your second question would also be "I don't know," because, for one, I don't know, and two, I don't make predictions on things without basing them on any kind of facts or evidence. Doing so incorporates some shape or form of faith, which is the point I was trying to make in my original post. Whether it's faith in one's self/intuition, faith in the doctrine, faith in rationality, it makes no difference.

But, if you are so caught up in semantics and petty sub-divisions of atheism (i.e. "agnostic atheists", which IMO is just confusing), then feel free to insert "Strong-Atheists" in place of "atheists" in my original post. I hope that clarifies things for you.

 

Nuh uh. No confusion at all. I said quite clearly that agnosticism is not a third alternative. You can either be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

The answer to the second question is you don't know? You don't know whether or not you have faith at this exact moment in a particular God? You must be quite confused about yourself.

If you do not know whether or not it exists - you can either lack belief in it because you feel you cannot or do not know, or you can believe in it regardless of your inability to come to any conclusion epistemically. Either way you don't know - but your belief in it or lack thereof regardless of being unable to have knowledge will make you either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Further, the terminology is not confusing at all. Its very simple. Many people here are caught up in common misconceptions about positions. Semantics is not a big issue but when formally discussing a subject you should at least know the definitions of the terms you're actually using.

And lastly, I already answered your charge about Strong-Atheism being a "Faith" position. And I also answered your charge about there being any "faith" in rationality.

I understand what you're saying, no clarification needed. What I'm saying is that your understanding of terms and positions is confused, and your understanding of logic and rationality is confused also.

This thread reminds me of the few Universist board members I used to talk to. As a friend of mine said, "Universism is the foolosophy of gas station attendants". The point being, without intent to insult, that this thread is intended to discuss positions, and yet the contributors are actually uneducated about what those positions are really about. - Similar to the Universists, who involved themselves in philosophical thought and yet had no understanding of philosophy.

- Laz

P.S. If you feel the terminology is confusing, I humbly suggest you read George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God". He spends alot of time clearing up misconceptions about what atheism is, what agnosticism is, and etc. etc.

 

Philosophically
If you are a *rational* person.
You believe what the evidence suggests.

In order to know what the evidence suggests,
You must weigh the evidence.

The credibility of the evidence is evidence itself;
In that credibility directly influences the "weight" of the evidence.

If strong evidence is incredible,
It is not strong evidence at all.

Back to the point.

If the evidence, after being weighed,
Tends to weigh more on one side,
Then it is rational to believe that side.
If the evidence weighs more on the other,
Then it is rational to believe the other side.

If the evidence suggests that there is a God,
It is rational to believe in God.
If the evidence suggests that there is not a God,
It is rational to beileve there is not a God.

Each person has varying amounts of evidence.

Some have more evidence to support God's existance than they have evidence to disprove it.

Some have more evidence to disprove God's existance.

Either way, as you stated,
You must either believe in God, or not believe in God.

However, this is false.

If, after weighing the evidence, the evidence is balanced, and the evidence does not suggest either one of these things,

Then, it is rational,
Philosophically,
To do what is called "suspending judgment" about the issue.

Thus,
When asked "Does God exist?"
It is rational to say "Yes." if your evidence supports it.
It is rational to say "No." if your evidence weighs against it.
And it is ALSO rational,
To say "I don't know." if your evidence neither supports it nor weighs against it.

Thus.

You can be a theist by believing in God.
Or an atheist by disbelieving in God.
Or what is called "agnostic" by suspending judgment about God.

All are philosophically rational.

Furthermore,

It is NOT rational,
To answer "I don't know." to the question "Does God exist?"
And then answer "Yes." or "No." to the question "Do you believe God exists?"

As if you BELIEVE that God exists,
And if you are rational,
Then you must have evidence to support the existance of God.

If you have heavy evidence to support this existance,
Then the answer to your question "Does God exist?" must be yes.

Therefore, there is no such thing as,
"agnostic theist"
Nor is there such a thing as,
"agnostic atheist."

As an agnostic, by definition, does not BELIEVE nor does he DISBELIEVE,
The existance of God.

And to answer "Yes." or "No." to a question about their BELIEFS in God,
By definition,
Makes them not agnostic.

 

Thanks for the kind words JLazarus. It's nice to hear this from one stands on the opposite side of the spectrum. It's a welcome change from the usual comments that amount to me being some poor uneducated sap whose only basis for his beliefs is desire.

 

I personally feel that those atheists who generalize about a theist's motives for belief are just as bad as those theists who try to brush aside atheistic arguments by saying, "Oh, well it doesn't matter, cuz deep down you believe in God anyway". Extremely frustrating, and its disrespectful.

You're a very educated sap .

Hell, when is the last time you've heard the word's "Logical Positivism" and "Presuppositionalism" out a common atheist or theist? They've no grasp on the history of philosophy and in-depth concerns about God. Although I do hold to non-cognitivism, I don't hold to verificationism - but it was good to know someone else was educated enough on this forum that you knew about it anyway.

I'm one of the most staunch atheists on the block, with the exception of only my friends . But you'll see me giving a much harder time to the atheist who just nay-says everything (You have no proof, you have no proof, you have no proof), as compared to the educated theist. You're a far better asset to this forum then alot of others who come here - and I've been coming here a long time.

The first part of this is what I have already addressed. Inquiring as to whether God exists or not is different than personal faith.

Secondly, you're treating atheism as if its a positive position again. If you read my post last time and understood it, you'd see it was not . The atheist need not say "God does not exist" to be an atheist. The individual who asserts this is a Strong, or Positive Atheist. The common atheist may simply lack a belief in such a being. So when the question "Does God exist?" pops up, an atheist can respond, "I don't know, - it might, but I have a lack of belief in such a thing, due to reasons X, Y, and Z".

Further, an agnostic theist need not provide evidence - because they are not providing a positive assertion about reality, but rather, they have faith without the ability to know. You'll never catch them saying, "God exists" - but rather, "I have faith in a God, but I can never know if he actually exists". There is no burden of proof on their shoulders - there position is such as to deny the capacity to be able to meet the burden of proof on the subject, or at least to be unable to do it at that time.

If the evidence is entirely balanced, then guess what? You most likely will lack a positive belief in a God, because the evidence is inconclusive about his existence. Thus, you're an agnostic atheist - you lack a belief in God, and you simply don't know if he exists or not.

Once again, read the literature. You can learn something new everyday .

- Laz

 

I have seen enough to convince me of the existance of Spirit, but I do not think any religion has a corner on the market. Buddha explained it best, from all the views I have read.

 

Do we agree that there is no formal proof possible for the existence of God? If there were, the need for free will disappears--which runs counter to the very basis of Christiamity with regard to good and evil. It also answers the question, "If God is omnipotent, why does he not abolish evil by eliminating Satan?" It is the choice that each of makes that is significant, according to Christian teachings, that gives meaning to being "good."

 

Garp

No..Occam does not agree.
You have NO IDEA what proof is possible.
Trying to tell others what is pssible is a lie....
Anything is possible.

Occam

Anything.

 

Hikaru agrees with Occam in this case.

It is not that proof of God *doesn't* exist, and never will ...

It is rather that proof of God is *not known* to humanity at this time, and may never be known.

Though it might also be known in the future.

 

No, no no...sorry if I gave you that impression. My point was not whether anything like this is possible or not. I was speaking to the Christian concept of the belief in God as based on faith alone (i.e. a choice to believe). If a proof of God existed, this central tenet of this faith would evaporate. I suppose that one could say that there is no proof or disproof of any particular set of beliefs.